DG wrote:

LT wrote:

That's the wealth that he made by using his brain, working hard and taking big risks.

Not necessarily his ..he's the front man ...but the the description here is somewhat fanciful. I speak as one of the few here that has been inside Campden Hill Road on more than a few occasions.

I have worked for three "Sir's" ....did any really deserve it? taking away the question does anyone really deserve a title which elevates the complete Bull in all that's wrong in our society...no really I don't think they did

LT wrote:

Has Branson or any part of the Virgin empire evaded paying UK tax?

LT wrote:

If they have, that should be fined accordingly. I suspect that he legally avoids paying tax where he can, as he prefers to decide for himself who should benefit from his wealth. Which I think is fair enough....

LT wrote:

...Having said that though the UK does well from Virgin. How much tax has been raised by the UK employees of Virgin owned businesses, the VAT on the goods and services they sell, the business rates on the premises etc. etc.? I don't know the answer, but I suspect HMRC benefits nicely from the empire that Branson has built.

BLFarrar wrote:

From what I have read he's has been convicted for tax evasion before

 ==================================
05 D3 HSE V8 4.4
04 MG TF 135
03 MG TF 115 Cool Blue Edition
02 MG TF 160
00 Hymer B564 Lionheart
1971 Series III 109
 

DG wrote:

Sounds to me that he's another idol on your poster wall LT

He made his money ...though not without breakdowns and suicides amongst those who helped him get there.

I don't really think he was bothered about the gong ...but then why pass up a good pr opportunity.

Not all DG, I've always found him somewhat annoying actually. As I just said though, I do respect his entrepreneurship. It was great that he was able to assist you on your way up the employment ladder.

Sadly, I suspect that it's virtually impossible to build such an enormous empire without some individuals suffering. Breakdowns and suicides are also a sad reality for many public sector workers.

I wish you all a good night.

DG wrote:

LT wrote:

That's the wealth that he made by using his brain, working hard and taking big risks.

Not necessarily his ..he's the front man...

|

Shock Horror. Billionaire entrepreneur employs bright people to make him even more money.

Really!? I thought he even drove the trains and cleaned the sh***ers himself.

Whether or not Branson is a nice guy is utterly irrelevant.

This is welcome to the Socialist Utopia where anybody who dares to challenge the great leader or the party, to show them up for what they really are, is off to the gulag. Stripped of their knighthood of course.

Corbyn tried to pull off a cheap political stunt. With his usual ineptitude he shot himself in the foot and doesn't like the fact he's been outed.

Quote:

Shock Horror. Billionaire entrepreneur employs bright people to make him even more money.

Really!? I thought he even drove the trains and cleaned the sh***ers himself

Thanks for clarifying that to LT

Branson is a nice guy, Virgin is a strong brand ...but in reality he's a minor \ medium stakeholder in all of the 80 companies bearing the name, many of which are loss making. He makes his money almost entirely on brand name fees and royalties. Tax affairs though are where clouds start to appear ...as usual.

The train thing was farcical for sure ..but its politcal fish and chip newspaper. Whether Virgin trains or other operators the bigger picture is that there is something very wrong with where our money is going in this sector.

LT wrote:

I suspect that he legally avoids paying tax where he can, as he prefers to decide for himself who should benefit from his wealth. Which I think is fair enough.

Correct, and this is the basic ethos of the Neo Lib/Cons and is how they see that the State may be shrunk, and certain 'essential' services would be maintained.
1) Introduce a 'Flat Tax', where everyone pays the same rate of tax on their income, from whichever source.
2) Introduce far more exemptions from tax for e.g. 'Charitable' donations
3) Slacken the rules on what defines a Charitable organization.

This will mean that the State need np longer bother itself with providing the infrastructure, roads, rail, internet, Hospitals, prisons, water, gas, electricity. Nor the Police, military, fire service, etc.
That will all be done by private finance donated as decided by the people who can now afford to spend the money saved in tax.
It is THEY who will decide who gets what and at what cost - if at all - in a straight market economy. Naturally their RoC will be tax exempt.
Anti - Trust / Monopoly regulation will be abolished as the Market will resolve everything in such areas.
Democratically elected parliaments will wither, except for accepting the status quo defined by the market moguls, and on ceremonial occasions - for the tourists.

Sic Transit Gloria Bourgeois Democracy.

AAA

comedyharvey wrote:

This is welcome to the Socialist Utopia where anybody who dares to challenge the great leader or the party, to show them up for what they really are, is off to the gulag. Stripped of their knighthood of course.

Gulags were inherited from the Czars and the 'White Russians' who UK fought alongside.
The Stalinist era was one of a continuation of the terror imposed by the Russian 'Royal family' and was no more than a dictator led utterly corrupt regime. Tho', had not the Russians taken the brunt of the Nazi's world domination plans, we'd all be driving .... ?, not JLRs.
In many ways, Communist CCCP was parallel to the way that the Western Orthodox church had been run for centuries with Inquisitions, heretic and witch burning. Not to mention the devestation of world wars waged as so called Crusades to 'Free' the Holy Land.
But again and again you're mixing up Communism and Socialism. Now getting stuck to draw the line between certain sections of the P Tory Party and UKIP, NF, EDL is understandable, but between Communism and Socialism... dear oh, dear.

AAA